New learning network paradigms: Communities of objectives, crowdsourcing, wikis and open source

Abstract

This paper analyzes the new learning and network collaboration paradigms, their motivation and consequences. The origins of these practices are traced to the development of the Internet and the impact of globalization. The paper analyzes their advantages and the factors which have led to their development. Three contexts or diverse points of view have been followed: academic and scientific, business and social. The paper aims to develop and propose a taxonomy of these practices according to certain variables related to communication, social interaction, information, intellectual property, knowledge access and values.

Introduction

The objective of this paper is to analyze, from a conceptual point of view, new learning and network collaboration paradigms. It will discuss their motivation and predict their evolution. Why do these practices seem brilliant, novel and different from current practices? What factors have led to their development? What are their future prospects for academics, business and society? The paper will propose a taxonomy which will facilitate the analysis according to social interaction, information and intellectual propriety management, knowledge access and social values, utilizing certain variables related to communication.

The paper is set out as follows. First, the state of the art is presented in the form of a review of the academic and non-academic literature that studies the evolution of the various forms of collaboration communities. These various alternatives and their characteristics are then analyzed by means of a number of variables, which are proposed in order to develop a taxonomy. An analysis is also made of how the various models fit with academic, business or social contexts and requirements. Finally, the paper concludes with a vision of the future of these communities taking into account the analyzed aspects.

For a long time, learning has been considered within a social context. Bandura (1977) pointed out how a relevant part of human behavior is learned and modeled by observation of others and how these codified models serve as a guide for action.

We will not deal here with the diverse schools of learning which organizational behavior has discussed extensively. Thus, from the point of view of Argyris (1992) the organization learns through individuals and individual learning activities are also facilitated or inhibited by an ecological system of factors which can be denominated the learning organization.

An earlier model of this author (Argyris, 1976), “the double loop learning”, postulates that learning alters the variables or values which govern the learning process. This organizational learning model has also defined learning as a higher or lower learning level (Fiol & Lyles, 1985), “adaptive versus generative learning” (Senge, 1990), or “tactical versus strategic learning” (Dogson, 1991).

Various authors have analyzed the efficiency of various modalities of learning groups, such as formal or informal groups and learning communities and sharing knowledge networks, etc. These have been also denominated and defined as “Communities of Practice” (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1993; Wenger & Snyder, 2000), “Learning Organizations” (Garvin, 1993), “Virtual corporations” (Chesbrough & Teece, 1996; Davidow & Malone, 1992; Hale & William, 1997), “Network Companies” (Bessant & Francis, 1999; Miles & Snow, 1995), etc. Clarke and Cooper (2000) support the idea of knowledge management as a collaboration activity in a social context or “shared context”. Moreover, some authors have related work, learning and innovation in a common context (Brown & Duguid, 1991). Thus, formal organization hides on some occasions informal communities of practice which facilitate learning and innovation.

These concepts have recently been extended. Thus, Wenger (2000) argues that the success of an organization depends on its ability to constitute itself as a system of social learning and to participate in learning systems of a larger geographic scope, pointing out three relevant elements: communities of practice, border processes and identities. This has been applied to multinational organizations and their need to manage knowledge in a distributed form, sharing knowledge and collaborating beyond the limits of their organizations (Hildreth, Kimble, & Wright, 2000). It has to be taken into account, especially in the following discussion, that a community of practice is not simply a club of friends or a network of personal connections, since it must have an identity, defined by a shared domain of interest. Therefore, in a knowledge management system, human aspects must be considered, as well as those referring to information and thus the establishment of a community of practice philosophy can contribute to the project success (Adams & Freeman, 2000).

Christopher and Johnson (2001) reviewed academic literature relative to the communities of practice and their potential development by means of networks and remote collaboration, technology and specifically in relation to Internet tools. According to this author, actual network technology has advantages and disadvantages in the emerging development of communities of practice. As most of the collaboration is text-based, norms are reduced, allowing introvert participants to share their ideas on equal terms with extroverts. Nevertheless, the basic problem of virtual communities is desertion. This problem can be reduced somehow by means of suitable techniques of facilitation and support, especially in the cases of online communication techniques.

Kolbitsch and Hermann Maurer (2006) analyzed the construction of communities around encyclopedic knowledge and although they have focused their work on technical aspects, and they also approach how to manage the contribution's quality in spite of the absence of a responsible authority.

Dalle and Jullien (2003) analyzed the sustainability of free software and how contribution systems reinforced their diffusion. Some of their peculiarities have allowed these systems to improve at a higher speed than proprietary software and also to attain excellent market penetration in their field with existing standards. Dahlander and Magnusson (2005) analyze the case of communities of practice in the field of free software, coexisting with competitive proprietary software firms in the Scandinavian countries, and their relationship with the latter, since they try to capture the communities’ resources. On the other hand, Osterloh and Rota (2007) analyze the phenomena of the development of open software, and question whether these projects represent a new development. According to these authors, the open software community developed an institutional innovation in open software licenses, allowing them to survive as common property. Secondly, these licenses are reinforced socially by motivated contributors. Sustainability will depend on whether there is sufficient community support for the collective initiative (Henkel, 2006).

Globalization introduces elements which influence the evolution and development of these phenomena (Friedman, 2005; Raymond, 2001; von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003). All this appears linked to new innovation models (Chesbrough (2003), Chesbrough (2007)). Some of these have also been reported with diverse approaches, such as “Crowdsourcing” (Howe, 2006; McConnon, 2006), “folksonomy” (Bernard, Chautemps, & Galaup, 2006), “Produsage” (Bruns, 2007) or WebBlogging (Bernard et al., 2006; Du & Wagner, 2006; Ras, Avram, Waterson, & Weibelzahl, 2005).